CRIMINAL LAW
University of Florida Levin College of Law
Professor Seigel
Fall 2009
Purposes of Punishment:
Study Guide to the Philosophers
I. Retribution
A. Definition: punishing because the defendant deserves it. Deontological argument.
B. Advocates:
1. Kant: Penal law is a categorical imperative; should not
punish pp. 80-81 UNLESS the individual has committed the crime; principle
of equality: punishment should fit crime.
2. Moore A “retributivist punishes because, and only because,
the p. 81 offender deserves it. . . . For a retributivist, the
moral culpability of an offender also gives society the duty
to punish.
3. Stephen: It is morally right to hate criminals; official
punishment p. 85 gives “a definite expression and a solemn
ratification . . . to the hatred that is excited by the commission
of the offence. (In another part of this essay printed
on pages 90-91, he states that criminal justice is to
righteous disapprobation as marriage is to (sexual)
passion.)
C. Pro and Con:
1. H.L.A Hart: Can two wrongs (suffering of victim, then
suffering of
p. 82 perpetrator) really make a moral right?
(Bentham, see below, believed that the answer is “no.”)
2. Morris: Punishment of criminals is morally right
(fair, just)
pp. 82-83 because they have upset the balance of
benefit/burden of non-interference with other persons or
their property; punishment restores the balance. (Later,
